Sure this has been brought up before. My Glock mags has .40 stamped on it, not .40 S&W cause Glock don't like other company's name on their product. .40 like .50 is not a cartridge, by same argument don't they shared the same fate.
.50 Beowulf 3rd Party Magazines
- Thread starter NR Magazine
- Start date
garybusey
Regular
- Location
- vancouver, bc
even m&p 40 followers only have .40 stamped on them not even .40 s&w
cancer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Owen Sound, Ontario
Hold your horses.. let's compare apples to apples here. Those are proprietary magazines you're talking about. The pistol itself is documented to chamber .40 S&W cartridges, if the company manufacturing the pistol wants to abbreviate the stamp on the magazines that they ship with the guns, that's their decission, but it's still understood by all to be a .40 S&W magazine because it physically came in the same box. Even if the magazine came separately from the pistol, the magazine is clearly labelled as being specifically an OEM magazine.
However, these magazines in question (by the company that shall not be named) are 3rd party magazines. Let's look at what some other 3rd party manufacturers are doing:
Mec-Gar
ProMag
MetalForm
E-Lander
Hmm... I'm noticing a pattern here.
However, these magazines in question (by the company that shall not be named) are 3rd party magazines. Let's look at what some other 3rd party manufacturers are doing:
Mec-Gar
ProMag
MetalForm
E-Lander
Hmm... I'm noticing a pattern here.
acrashb
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- GTA / Golden Horseshoe
The RCMP has used markings before to determine legality for aftermarket mags. Of course they aren't going to prohibit Glock-branded mags, they are obviously "designed or manufactured" for .40S&W - every possible indicator, including marketing literature, says so. Generic 3rd-party mags are a different issue, and clarity has been the order of the day. The "company that shall not be named" is completely unclear, sadly.
frankyflo
Member
- Location
- Montreal, QC
Any update ?
NR Magazine
Regular
- Location
- Ontario
I'm affraid not. We wish the answer was yes, but there's been no news to report.
Some guys still have the WRONG idea that gun ownership in Canada is privilege. Gun ownership in Canada IS A RIGHT for two very distinctive and valid reasons.
1) A right is something you assert. If you believe owning guns is your right, then it is. No government, anywhere at any time, can grant a right. A right is something that exists and a government can only ever recognize it. Just because some believe our government has not recognized that right does not mean it exists.
2) The right to own firearms is covered in an old timey act of years gone by (the BNA act I think). All acts including it became part of the Canadian constitution. Therefore, our constitution includes provisions recognizing our rights to own firearms.
As long as the governments believes that we only think of our firearms as a privilege, they will never fear taking them away, nor will they ever want to recognize our right to own them. WE ARE TO BLAME, not the ANTI's.
1) A right is something you assert. If you believe owning guns is your right, then it is. No government, anywhere at any time, can grant a right. A right is something that exists and a government can only ever recognize it. Just because some believe our government has not recognized that right does not mean it exists.
2) The right to own firearms is covered in an old timey act of years gone by (the BNA act I think). All acts including it became part of the Canadian constitution. Therefore, our constitution includes provisions recognizing our rights to own firearms.
As long as the governments believes that we only think of our firearms as a privilege, they will never fear taking them away, nor will they ever want to recognize our right to own them. WE ARE TO BLAME, not the ANTI's.
NR Magazine
Regular
- Location
- Ontario
Magazine is currently under inspection. We're been asked to check back in around mid-August.
Darkwater
CGN Regular
Sorry, but this is actually wrong. It not in the constitution, and there is a microscopically thin (if any) legal basis for this statement. The courts have only addressed this ONCE, in Saskatchewan, this is the only true case law on the subject. The appeal judge found no "right" to bear arms. See Hudson v Canada (Appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed).
I see extremist views on gun ownership as one of the greatest detriments to expanded gun privilege. We are indeed to blame if we allow these statements to go unchecked.
Sorry for the tangent.
Last edited:
bcbravo2zero
CGN Regular
Well said. I could not agree more.
A reasoned and realistic approach is the only way forward.
AlbertaGunslinger
Regular
- Location
- The Wide Open Prairie
@Darkwater, you are in fact the one who is wrong. Canadians do have a legal RIGHT to bear arms, this right comes from British Common Law which has been protected and enshrined in Canada twice, first with the BNA Act when out country was created and again in 1982 with the Constitution Act. The two main sources from which our right to bear arms is derived are; the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1765) by Sir William Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights (1689). Both of these sources prove that Canadians have a legal and undeniable right to bear arms, the court decisions that exist that say otherwise are simply wrong decisions made by liberal activist judges.
Beyond the legal basis there exists the widely accepted concept of "natural rights", this means that the fundamental rights that we have as human beings are all the same, it means that our rights are inherent in nature and that they are not created by any government or any man. While government recognition is a benefit, it is in no way required for our rights to be valid.
Finally, advocating for freedom and demanding that your right to keep and bear arms be respected are not extremist view points, an extremist view point is that you can't have an AK cause it looks scary, or you can't defend your family from violent criminals because it offends liberal sensibilities, or that a good law abiding citizen should go to jail for owning a firearm passed down through generations because he hasn't received a permission slip from the government nanny.
Now, since that is settled, 50 BEOWULF MAGS, I want them so much, NR Magazine let us know when you have an update!!!
Beyond the legal basis there exists the widely accepted concept of "natural rights", this means that the fundamental rights that we have as human beings are all the same, it means that our rights are inherent in nature and that they are not created by any government or any man. While government recognition is a benefit, it is in no way required for our rights to be valid.
Finally, advocating for freedom and demanding that your right to keep and bear arms be respected are not extremist view points, an extremist view point is that you can't have an AK cause it looks scary, or you can't defend your family from violent criminals because it offends liberal sensibilities, or that a good law abiding citizen should go to jail for owning a firearm passed down through generations because he hasn't received a permission slip from the government nanny.
Now, since that is settled, 50 BEOWULF MAGS, I want them so much, NR Magazine let us know when you have an update!!!
TRich
CGN Regular
- Location
- Kawartha Lakes, Ontario
Didn't the supreme court shut that down a couple years ago?
bcbravo2zero
CGN Regular
This is what happens when people play amateur lawyer.
I have one word for you: jurisprudence.
Do you actually think that any Court, with the proper jurisdiction, would rule that Canadians have a right to own/possess firearms in any way similar to that of US citizens?
I believe that "extremist" was being used in relation to Turcopike's confrontational views re: engaging members of the public who are not pro-firearms. Certainly, I would rather have someone like Ben Shapiro in my corner than a radical nutcase like Alex Jones.
Last edited:
a_n_o_n
Regular
- Location
- British Columbia
Why is it people get so hung up on the idea of "rights"? As an example, women currently have the "right" to vote, they did not previously. If, under the legal framework established by the government, that "right" was revoked, then they would no longer have a "right" (natural or otherwise, claimed or otherwise) to do so. They could protest all they like, talk about a natural right to equality (the ### rights movement has been doing so for years) and yet it wouldn't change a thing... they wouldn't be voting. All "rights" are a privilege granted by a ruling body to the governed. They may be changed or revoked or altered with varying degrees of ease or acceptance, never make the mistake of thinking otherwise.
mspben
Regular
I'm with you there.
The more I learn, the more I realize how little I know.
Can't wait for some Beowulf mags...
Ben
J_K_S
Regular
- Location
- Surrounded by Socialists.
I just ordered a .50 cal 5 round mag They are made in Canada and are for use in the AR platform. I hope they work in the Type 97 NSR I have on order. Has anyone else heard of these mags?
Last edited by a moderator:
Gorno
Regular
- Location
- Saskatchewan
Read the thread..... We are not allowed to talk about them until the RCMP give a ruling on the magazine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please observe this:
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/foru...c-50-Cal-AR15-Magazines-made-in-New-Brunswick
Thank you
